ArticleTaiwan journal of ophthalmology
Outcome of vision screening by community health workers at immunization outlets in Nigeria to support access to early visual evaluation in children aged 0-2 years.
Article in Taiwan journal of ophthalmology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Barriers and limitations of conventional oculovisual screening methods in children: a systematic review perspective.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Pooled it
- The Burden of Pediatric Visual Impairment and Ocular Diagnoses in Barbados.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Combined hearing and vision screening programs: A scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRoutine eye examination in early life is not the practice in most resource-limited countries. Delay in the presentation for eye problems is typical. Community health officers are often consulted by caregivers for all health problems during routine immunization and well-baby clinics in primary healthcare for children aged 0-2 years. This study evaluated the value and limitation of interview, Bruckner red reflex test, and instrument vision screener by noneye care middle-level staff of rural and urban well-baby immunization clinics, in early detection and referral for childhood eye disorders. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis was a cross-sectional study. Middle-level community health workers (CHWs) working at well-baby/immunization clinics were trained to perform vision screening using interview of caregivers, red reflex eye examination with ophthalmoscope, and instrument vision screener (Welch Allyn SPOT™ Vision Screener) without mydriatic drugs during routine immunization of children aged 0-2 years. IRB approval was obtained.
resultsOver a 6-month period in 2017, the CHWs screened 5609 children. Overall, 628 (11.2%) patients were referred to the tertiary child eye care unit. Referred cases included cataract, glaucoma, congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction, ophthalmia neonatorum, retinoblastoma, and significant refractive errors. Referral from the interview of mothers was enhanced if specific questions to elicit visual function were asked. Bruckner red reflex test was more effective than instrument vision screener in the detection of cataract and life-threatening diseases such as retinoblastoma. Instrument vision screener was preferred by parents and better at detecting amblyopic risk factors.
conclusionPreschool vision screening during routine immunization by primary healthcare workers in resource-limited settings was effective. Whenever instrument vision screener does not give any recommendation during screening, consider vision- or life-threatening pathology and refer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.